Re: possibly debating Steve Hays.
Secondly, even if I did decide to take him on, on some issue, it would be after White was convinced by his cronies to debate me, as suggested. And that is because most of these leading Internet anti-Catholics know and support each other. It's like a little club…Hays would first need to persuade White that he has to live up to his own triumphalistic rhetoric of supposed unvanquishability. Moreover, he would have to state whether he agreed with White's assessment of me in his letter declining my challenge or not.
—Dave Armstrong
Unfortunately, Armstrong has put me in a real bind. I’m in no position to put the squeeze on my own boss.
You see, after I have a little bit of a falling out with the CIA (pssst! My real name is Jason Bourne), Dr. White hired me to run black bag operations out of Prague.
It’s a counterballast to Opus Dei. Last year alone, my fellow Treadstone alumni and I had several shootouts with Opus Dei militia in Berlin, Vienna, Yonkers, and beautiful downtown Burbank.
It’s all part of Dr. White’s nefarious scheme to take over the Vatican.
The first stage of the plot was a successful attempt to infiltrate the SBC with TR sleeper cells.
After that, Dr. White scored a real coup when he engineered the election of Benedict XVI.
Ben has been on White’s payroll for years. Don’t let that bad German accent fool you—Ben is really a farm boy from the outskirts of Selma, Alabama.
But Dr. White is still encountering stiff resistance from the Curia. So he’s ordered me to perform a mopping up operation.
Why should Dr. White waste his time in fruitless written debates? Everyone knows that he rarely does this and that he only does public moderated debates so that there can be cross-ex. In written debates, Armstrong could simply dodge the question by rambling on about something else.
ReplyDeleteAlso, why should White wast his time with Armstrong when it is clear from "The Catholic Verses" that Armstrong doesn't have any exegetical ability at all? [Then again, does any conservative Catholic have any?]
Does this get filed under "covert calvinism" or "westminster wetwork"? supralapsarian spying, perhaps.
ReplyDeleteMathetes said:
ReplyDeleteDoes this get filed under "covert calvinism" or "westminster wetwork"? supralapsarian spying, perhaps.
**********
The classification is...classified!
Also, why should White wast his time with Armstrong when it is clear from "The Catholic Verses" that Armstrong doesn't have any exegetical ability at all? [Then again, does any conservative Catholic have any?]
ReplyDeleteExactly! Now, this hits the nail on the head. The goal of any anti-Catholic debate with a Catholic is to find the most ignorant, stupid, clueless, imbecilic Catholic out there (which, of course, is pretty much any Catholic.
That way, it can be an easy victory and all the anti-Catholics can go out for a beer (oops, root beer) and slap each other on the back and talk about how brilliant and superior they are.
So, since Grand Poobah White has made it clear that I have the IQ of a pencil eraser and the reliability of a hub cap thief, what better person, I ask?!
You're right, though. I erred in making White's agreement to a live chat debate a condition for anything. That's dumb, because he's too much of a coward (where I am concerned) to ever agree to that, and that shouldn't be a reason for debating or not debating anyone else.
ReplyDeleteSo that precondition is dropped. But I would like to talk about the other factors I mentioned, if you are serious about negotiating a debate agreement.
They're also discussing a possible encounter at Pyromaniacs. They actually think White might agree. I told them it is exceedingly unlikely.
ReplyDeleteAnd I still like live chat the best, because it allows live cross-examination (as long as the two parties can stay on the subject).
On the subject of debate...
ReplyDeletePaul, will you be able to debate Eddie Tabash on March 25th at UF? I hate to pressure you, but I need to know to get things finalized.
Thanks,
Daniel
"Exactly! Now, this hits the nail on the head. The goal of any anti-Catholic debate with a Catholic is to find the most ignorant, stupid, clueless, imbecilic Catholic out there (which, of course, is pretty much any Catholic."
ReplyDeleteDave, are you even serious? Your statement makes one of the most absurd implications I think I have read you make (and you've made alot). So, basically every Anti-Christian opponent Dr. White has engaged in debate is an imbecilic, stupid, ignorant, clueless lump of a Catholic. Thats mighty bold of you to include Peter Stravinskas, Gary Michuta, Gerry Matatics, Art Sippo, Mitch Pacwa, Robert Sungenis, Tim Staples, and Patrick Madrid (just to name a few) in that group - who have actually participated in live, professional, moderated, scholarly debates. None of them can hold a candle to you and your mighty E-chat channel written spattle battles for Holy Mother Church. I'm not surprised you've elevated yourself (in your own mind) above the rest of the Anti-Christian Apologetic World. Congratulations on your promotion.
First, I never said that you have the IQ of a pencil eraser, and neither does Dr. White think that. Like most Roman Catholic apologists you're getting emotional and irrational.
ReplyDeleteSecond, it IS quite clear from your book (not to mention your comment on the Parable of the Sower; CLASSIC by the way :)- ) that you have no exegetical abilities.
Third, Dr. White has challenged you to a moderated public debate several times. Are you a coward just because you turned him down due to the fact that that is not your forum of choice?
Lastly, Dr. White is working on a book in response to the "Jesus Tomb" nonsense. So, he obviously has better things to do.
You're acting like a kid on the playground.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteSeriously, this James White obsession you have is creepy.
As I said in another forum, I'm of the opinion that James shouldn't waist his time with Armstrong.
ReplyDeleteArmstrong stating the James is afraid is reason enough not to put anymore time into this individual.
Dave, why don't you just give James a call on Thursday?
--Jeff
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI've never heard anything about it. Eddie and I were going to debate this summer, but that fell through. I then said we could try to get another one going, and then he mentioned talks about UF that I had never been in on. Since I just found out about a UF debate last week, it's doubtful that I can do it since, given my other responsibilities, I'd need more than 3 weeks to prepare. It would have been nice to have a couple months advance warning.
I can still do late summer, or early fall.
Dave said: "So, since Grand Poobah White has made it clear that I have the IQ of a pencil eraser and the reliability of a hub cap thief, what better person, I ask?!"
ReplyDeleteWow Dave, I heard that White was gracious, but the above comments are far too generous, even for White. Perhaps he was trying to flatter you?
Is Steve interested in seriously discussing terms for a debate or not?
ReplyDeleteI'm only here because free speech is allowed. My comment was just banned at Pyromaniacs, so I won't comment there anymore. Turk was allowed to insult me, but I was not allowed to make any comment on White or Turk.
Triablogue allows free speech. It also gives free reign for personal insults, but what can you do?
So Steve, if you want to talk seriously about it, please do so soon, because I have better things to do than read all the childish insults here.
Peter,
My offer remains on the table. But if you don't accept it and drop the insults, it will remain up, because the paper does at least deal with an actual topic.
Dave, why don't you just call in to White's webcast. You can go back and forth. Yeah, you won't get 3 straight hours with him, but then you could just call back next time. I'm sure he'd take your call. He'll basically debate anyone that will call twice a week.
ReplyDelete"So Steve, if you want to talk seriously about it, please do so soon, because I have better things to do than read all the childish insults here."
ReplyDelete"Childish"? Excuse me?!? Who's the one running around calling people cowards if they won't meet you out on the playground by the swings to duke it out?!
Hi Jon,
ReplyDeleteI suggested a few years back that I call and we simply chat like human beings for the hour. He said no; he had to have a debate or he said it wasn't worth it.
Still wanna meet for lunch sometime? I wrote a while back and got no reply.
"And I still like live chat the best, because it allows live cross-examination (as long as the two parties can stay on the subject)."
ReplyDeleteNo, you mean live "in person" dialog. In a chat room you can still run and hide, or ignore topics and questions.
It's much harder to do this when you're standing in front of a room of people, and they're all snickering or shocked by how poorly one defends a position.
If there was a ever a real "live" debate between DA and JW, I would fly to that location to be there in person. I would be very interested to watch the timed cross-examination.
But this will never happen. Say what one wants to about Sungenis, Matatics,etc. all these men have had the courage to defend their views in live debate.